Superior Versus Inferior Conjunctival Autografts Combined With Fibrin Glue in the Management of Primary Pterygia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of superior versus inferior conjunctival autograft (CAU) in the prevention of recurrence after performing a pterygium surgery in patients with primary pterygia. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized study of 60 eyes of 60 patients with primary pterygium. All the eyes underwent pterygium excision and were assigned randomly to receive either superior (30 eyes) or inferior (30 eyes) CAU. All grafts were attached with fibrin glue. The patients were followed up on postoperative day 1, day 7, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Outcome measures included rate of recurrence, mean surgical time, visual analog scale pain score, and amount of pain medication required in the first postoperative week. The mean surgical time, visual analog scale pain score, and amount of pain medication required in both groups were not statistically different. A follow-up of at least 6 months (mean 5.5 ± 1.1 months) was achieved in 49 eyes of 49 patients (24 eyes in the superior CAU group and 25 eyes in the inferior CAU group). One eye in the superior CAU group (4.2%) and 1 eye in the inferior CAU group (4.0%) developed pterygium recurrence. There was no statistically significant difference in the recurrence rates between the 2 groups. In the inferior CAU group, mild localized donor site scarring was noted in 2 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Pterygium excision with superior or inferior CAU secured with fibrin glue is safe and effective. There was no significant difference in surgical time, pain, and recurrence rates of pterygium after excision with superior or inferior CAU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".